Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Cross-Calibration of Chandrayaan-2 XSM with INSPIRESat-1 DAXSS and GOES-16 XRS

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Chandrayaan-2 XSM's beryllium window is 25 μm, not 8 μm, and the corrected calibration makes its spectra agree with DAXSS to ~25% and fluxes to ~10%.

desk verdict A credible, clearly-written calibration fix for XSM's low-energy response; the central thickness inference is not fully independent of the data it validates, but the APXS and GOES checks make it worth taking seriously. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01411 v1 pith:CMQJAEP6 submitted 2026-08-02 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.IM

N. P. S. Mithun , Santosh V. Vadawale , Asif M. Mandayapuram , M. Shanmugam , Soumya Kohli , Mehul R. Pandya , Anil Bhardwaj , Robert Sewell
show 4 more authors
Bennet Schwab Amir Caspi Thomas N. Woods Janet L. Machol
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.IM
keywords SolarX-rayspectroscopyCross-calibrationBerylliumwindowthicknessChandrayaan-2XSMDAXSSGOES-16XRSEffectiveareaflares
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper establishes that the low-energy response of the Chandrayaan-2 Solar X-ray Monitor (XSM) was miscalibrated: the detector's beryllium window is effectively 25 μm thick, not the 8 μm assumed from manufacturer specifications. This is shown by comparing simultaneous XSM and DAXSS spectra, whose ratio follows the attenuation curve of an extra ~17 μm of beryllium. With the updated effective area, XSM spectra are usable from 1 keV instead of 1.3 keV, and its 1–8 Å fluxes agree with DAXSS and GOES-16 XRS to within about 10% (median). This matters because XSM is a long-running solar X-ray spectrometer whose data underpin coronal and flare studies; a consistent absolute calibration lets these results be combined with other instruments across solar cycle 25.

What carries the argument

The central object is the XSM effective area at low energies, governed by the transmission of its beryllium window. The comparison uses the ratio of XSM to DAXSS count spectra (both divided by their own effective areas) as a function of energy; this ratio is modeled as attenuation by an additional beryllium thickness, with the DAXSS effective area from synchrotron beamline calibration serving as the absolute reference. The update replaces the 8 μm beryllium thickness in the XSM response with 25 μm, and is released in the updated data-analysis software.

What would settle it

Measure the physical thickness of the beryllium window on a surviving detector from the same manufacturing batch (e.g., the sibling detector used in the APXS instrument's flight model) and find it close to 8 μm; that would directly contradict the paper's 25 μm interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

By dividing simultaneous XSM and DAXSS count spectra by their respective effective areas and comparing them in broad energy bins, the authors find a monotonic deficit in XSM at low energies. The trend matches the transmission of an additional 14–20 μm of beryllium, with a best estimate of 17 μm. Because the dual-zone DAXSS aperture cannot produce this monotonic ratio through plausible changes in its own attenuation, and because laboratory measurements of two sibling detectors from the same batch (used in the APXS instrument) show a ~17 μm difference in window thickness, the deficit is attributed to XSM's beryllium window being effectively 25 μm rather than the assumed 8 μm. The XSM effective

Load-bearing premise

The correction assumes that the DAXSS absolute low-energy calibration is accurate and that the entire XSM/DAXSS spectral ratio is caused by extra attenuation in XSM's beryllium window; if DAXSS has an unmodeled low-energy loss that produces the same monotonic trend, the inferred 25 μm thickness would be wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • XSM's usable spectral range extends downward from 1.3 keV to 1 keV, opening diagnostics of cooler plasma and very small flares.
  • XSM's 1–8 Å fluxes now match GOES-16 XRS within a median of ~10%, so flare classifications and long-term irradiance records derived from XSM are on a consistent absolute scale.
  • The ~10% (1–8 Å) and ~20% (1–15 keV) inter-instrument flux agreements mean spectral parameters such as temperature and emission measure can be compared between XSM and DAXSS without large offsets.
  • The discovery that detectors from the same batch can have different beryllium window thicknesses implies that other instruments built with similar SDDs should re-examine their assumed window properties.
  • All previously published XSM results that used the old effective area below ~1.5 keV are affected; the updated calibration changes those spectra.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct measurement of a surviving sibling detector's window (if one exists) could turn the inferred 25 μm thickness from an effective calibration parameter into a verified physical property, and also test whether the same batch had a bimodal thickness distribution.
  • The same spectral-ratio technique could be applied to other overlapping solar X-ray spectrometers (e.g., STIX, SoLEXS) to tie their absolute scales to the same synchrotron-calibrated reference, potentially improving cross-mission consistency without needing a cosmic standard candle.
  • If the beryllium window is truly 25 μm physical thickness, the effective area below 1 keV is even more rapidly attenuated than modeled; the paper's 'usable from 1 keV' claim implicitly depends on the accuracy of the attenuation coefficients, which carry ~10% uncertainties, so the low-energy edge of the calibration may still shift slightly.
  • The slight residual trend in the XSM/DAXSS ratio at the lowest energies suggests a few more microns of effective beryllium might be present; the paper deliberately chooses the standard 25 μm value, so a future, more detailed spectral model including off-diagonal response could refine the thickness further.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper cross-calibrates the Chandrayaan-2 XSM solar X-ray spectrometer against the INSPIRESat-1 DAXSS spectrometer and the GOES-16 XRS broadband flux monitor. Using simultaneously observed spectra, the authors find that XSM counts fall increasingly below DAXSS at energies below ~2 keV. They interpret this deficit as unmodeled attenuation in the XSM effective area, attribute it to an effective beryllium window thickness of 25 μm rather than the previously modeled 8 μm, and release an updated calibration (XSMDAS v2.0). After the update, XSM and DAXSS spectra agree within ~25% across the band, XSM/DAXSS 1–8 Å fluxes have a median ratio of 0.92, and XSM/GOES-16 XRS 1–8 Å fluxes show a median difference of less than 10% over ~821,000 1-minute intervals. Supporting evidence is drawn from laboratory fluorescence spectra of two APXS detectors from the same batch, which show a ~17 μm window-thickness difference. The authors conclude that XSM spectroscopy is now usable from 1 keV rather than the previous 1.3 keV limit.

Significance. If the revised calibration is correct, this is a valuable result: it extends the scientifically usable range of a long-running solar X-ray spectrometer, demonstrates a cross-instrument consistency at the ~10% flux level, and documents an important failure mode in batch-provided beryllium windows. The paper is also commendable for using a large set of strictly simultaneous observations (~55 h of XSM/DAXSS overlap), for making the updated software and CALDB available, and for including independent GOES-16 and APXS evidence rather than relying solely on the XSM/DAXSS comparison. The main scientific claim—that XSM's low-energy response is governed by a ~25 μm beryllium window—is plausible and practically important, but it currently rests on an inference that is not uniquely determined and is partly circular.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, Fig. 2(b)] The attribution of the low-energy spectral ratio to XSM attenuation is not unique. The ratio R(E) = (XSM/ARF_XSM)/(DAXSS/ARF_DAXSS) is interpreted as entirely due to an error in the XSM effective area, implicitly taking the DAXSS effective area as exact. However, the paper itself notes that DAXSS SURF calibration requires an effective beryllium thickness ~1.7 μm larger than the physical 12.5 μm. An unmodeled low-energy loss in DAXSS—for example, a beryllium thickness error or an additional dead layer—would produce a monotonic decrease in R(E) toward low energies, mimicking extra XSM attenuation. The statement that the dual-zone aperture geometry 'cannot reproduce the observed monotonic trend' is not quantified; both beryllium and Kapton transmissions are smooth, featureless functions above ~1 keV, and simultaneous errors in both layers could produce a monotonic ratio. The authors should
  2. [Section 3.1 and Fig. 2(c,d)] The correction itself is inferred from the same XSM/DAXSS spectral comparison that is later used to demonstrate post-correction agreement. This is circular: the 17 μm beryllium attenuation is chosen to match the average ratio in Fig. 2(b), so the agreement in Fig. 2(d) is not an independent validation. The GOES-16 flux comparison provides an external anchor, but it is broadband and subject to the XRS flat-spectrum assumption, so it does not independently confirm the low-energy (<2 keV) spectral shape. Similarly, Appendix B shows that two APXS detectors from the same batch differ by ~17 μm in effective beryllium thickness, but it does not demonstrate that the specific XSM detector has a 25 μm rather than an 8 μm window. The authors should explicitly recognize this circularity and either add an independent spectral validation (e.g., fitting XSM spectra with a thermal model and checking res
  3. [Section 3.1, Fig. 2(b)] The adopted 25 μm value is not uniquely determined by the data. The authors state that the shaded red region corresponds to 14–20 μm of additional beryllium, and they later note that an increase of 2–3 μm would improve agreement below ~1.5 keV but overshoot around 1.8–2.5 keV. This indicates that the data constrain the additional thickness to a range of roughly 14–20 μm, and the choice of exactly 25 μm is motivated by it being a standard manufacturer thickness and by the APXS batch evidence. Given that the paper's headline result is '25 μm rather than 8 μm,' the uncertainty in this value should be propagated into the quoted flux agreement and the claim that spectroscopy is usable from 1 keV. A formal least-squares fit of the additional beryllium thickness to the average spectral ratio, with uncertainties, would strengthen the paper.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Fig. 2 caption] The red shaded region is described as corresponding to 14–20 μm of beryllium, but the caption does not explain how this range was derived or what confidence level it represents. Please state the source of this uncertainty.
  2. [Section 3.2, Fig. 3] The outliers attributed to 'slight timing errors between the instruments' are not quantitatively analyzed. A brief statement of how the timing offset was identified or bounded would improve the discussion.
  3. [Section 3.3] The sentence 'Even assuming a flat solar spectrum for XRS, the median flux ratio is 0.92 (8% difference)' is slightly inconsistent with the abstract's 'median flux difference of less than 10%'—the latter is correct, but the phrasing could be clarified.
  4. [Appendix A] Equation (A1) uses n_t and n_d but the text does not explicitly define the units or the range of validity of the paralyzable-deadtime approximation in Eq. (A2). A short note would help readers apply the correction.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

XSM Be-window correction is inferred from and validated on the same XSM/DAXSS spectral ratio; external GOES/APXS anchors prevent full circularity.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1 (Spectral Comparisons: XSM and DAXSS), Figs. 2(b)-2(d)]
    "The red line in Figure 2(b) corresponds to attenuation by an additional17µmberyllium... It can be seen that the spectral ratio matches well with an additional beryllium thickness of17µm, indicating that the detector’s beryllium window is effectively25µmrather than8µmas originally modeled. ... Panel (c) of Figure 2 shows the XSM spectra with updated effective area overplotted with DAXSS spectra, and panel (d) shows the spectral ratio. It can be seen that the measurements from the two instruments now match closely, with differences within ∼25% over the entire energy range."

    The 17 µm (then rounded to 25 µm) Be-window correction is selected because it makes the XSM/DAXSS spectral ratio approximately unity. The updated effective area is then applied to the same XSM/DAXSS spectra, and the resulting 'agreement within ~25%' is presented as validation. This is an in-sample goodness-of-fit statement, not an independent prediction: the same spectral ratio that determined the Be thickness is used to measure the improvement. The paper's abstract similarly presents the ~10% 1–8 Å flux agreement as a result, but that flux is computed using the revised effective area derived from the same comparison. External anchors (APXS same-batch laboratory spectra and GOES-16 XRS flux) provide independent support and keep the inference from being wholly circular, but this particular

full rationale

The paper's central claim—15 µm of additional Be attenuation in XSM—is not circular in itself: it is inferred from the XSM/DAXSS ratio under the assumption that DAXSS's absolute effective area is correct, and it is supported by independent APXS laboratory measurements showing a ~17 µm window-thickness difference between two detectors from the same batch. The GOES-16 XRS comparison is also an external dataset, although it uses the corrected XSM calibration and is less sensitive to low-energy ARF details. The main circularity is that the post-correction agreement between XSM and DAXSS is evaluated on the very same spectral ratio used to set the correction; that agreement is a measure of the fit, not a prediction. The paper partly mitigates this by choosing 25 µm because it is a standard manufacturer thickness rather than continuing to tune the thickness to the residual ratio, and it explicitly notes that further adjustment would produce overshoots elsewhere. The robustness concern that the 25 µm inference depends on DAXSS absolute calibration is a correctness risk, not a circularity step. Overall, the validation of the headline correction is partially in-sample, but the presence of external anchors keeps the score moderate rather than severe.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

One central fitted parameter (effective Be thickness) carries the result. The analysis rests on several domain assumptions about the correctness of DAXSS calibration, beryllium attenuation coefficients, the relevance of APXS detectors, and the diagonal-response approximation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Beryllium window base thickness for XSM (additional 17 μm over previous 8 μm) = 25 μm (17 μm additional)
    Determined by matching the XSM/DAXSS spectral ratio in Fig. 2b; rounded to the manufacturer's standard 25 μm rather than the best-fit value. This is the load-bearing correction.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption DAXSS low-energy absolute effective area calibration is correct (NIST SURF measurements).
    The spectral ratio is interpreted entirely as an XSM attenuation because DAXSS attenuation cannot reproduce monotonic trend (Sec 3.1). If DAXSS had an unmodeled low-energy loss, the conclusion would change.
  • domain assumption Henke et al. beryllium attenuation coefficients are accurate to about 10%.
    Used to convert thickness differences to transmission ratios (Fig 2b, Appendix B); systematic coefficient errors could shift the inferred thickness.
  • domain assumption APXS instruments' detectors are from the same batch as XSM, and their FM02/FM03 thickness difference is representative of XSM's window.
    Used to support 25 μm instead of 8 μm (Appendix B); indirect evidence because XSM itself was not directly measured.
  • domain assumption Diagonal response matrix approximation is valid for count-to-flux conversions at the 10% level.
    Stated in Sec 3.1 and 3.3; off-diagonal RMF effects are ignored, acknowledged to matter at about 10% level.
  • domain assumption XSM relative window-thickness variation from Mithun et al. [13] remains valid under the new base thickness.
    The new calibration retains the relative variation; if the absolute correction interacts with the relative map, the effective area model could be wrong.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cross-Calibration of Chandrayaan-2 XSM with INSPIRESat-1 DAXSS and GOES-16 XRS." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CMQJAEP6

@misc{pith2026260801411,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cross-Calibration of Chandrayaan-2 XSM with INSPIRESat-1 DAXSS and GOES-16 XRS},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CMQJAEP6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01411}
}
read the original abstract

X-ray spectroscopic observations of the solar corona and flares provide crucial diagnostics of plasma properties and are essential for understanding the physical processes responsible for coronal heating and solar eruptive activity. The Chandrayaan-2 Solar X-ray Monitor (XSM) provides disk-integrated spectra of the Sun in the 1--15~keV soft X-ray band, enabling modeling of the thermal X-ray emission from the corona across quiet phases to intense solar flares. XSM has been operational for about seven years, starting from the last solar minimum and covering the maximum of the current Solar Cycle. The Dual-zone Aperture X-ray Solar Spectrometer (DAXSS) instrument on board INSPIRESat-1 covers the solar X-ray spectra in a similar energy range as XSM and was operational during 2022--2026. With multiple instruments simultaneously observing the Sun in X-rays, there is scope to compare measurements across instruments. Here, we present the cross-calibration of XSM with DAXSS and a broadband X-ray flux monitor, the GOES-16 X-ray Sensor (XRS). Comparisons of XSM and DAXSS spectra reveal an unaccounted attenuation in the XSM low-energy response. Supported by laboratory measurements, we attribute this difference to the effective detector beryllium window thickness being 25 microns rather than the previously assumed 8 microns. Incorporating this revision into the XSM calibration significantly improves the agreement between the two instruments, with flux measurements agreeing within ~10% in the 1--8 Angstrom band. Comparison with GOES-16 XRS measurements over a broad range of solar activity levels further demonstrates consistency, with a median flux difference of less than 10%.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Del Zanna, G., Mason, H.E.: Solar UV and X-ray spectral diagnostics. Living Reviews in Solar Physics15(1), 5 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s41116-018-0015-3 arXiv:1809.01618 [astro-ph.SR] 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Energy (keV) 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 101 Count Rate a FM03 FM02 100 2 × 100 3 × 1004 × 100 6 × 100 Energy (keV) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Line Flux Ratio (FM03/FM02) ...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Garcia, H.A.: Temperature and Emission Measure from Goes Soft X-Ray Measurements. Sol. Phys.154(2), 275–308 (1994) https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00681100

    work page 1994

  3. [3]

    In: Fineschi, S., Fen- nelly, J.A

    Chamberlin, P.C., Woods, T.N., Eparvier, F.G., Jones, A.R.: Next generation x-ray sensor (XRS) for the NOAA GOES-R satellite series. In: Fineschi, S., Fen- nelly, J.A. (eds.) Solar Physics and Space Weather Instrumentation III. Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, vol. 7438, p. 743802 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1117...

    doi:10.1117/12.826807 2009

  4. [4]

    Design and Pre-FlightCalibration.JournalofGeophysicalResearch(SpacePhysics)129(11), 2024–032925 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JA032925

    Woods, T.N., Eden, T., Eparvier, F.G., Jones, A.R., Woodraska, D.L., Cham- berlin, P.C., Machol, J.L.: GOES-R Series X-Ray Sensor (XRS): 1. Design and Pre-FlightCalibration.JournalofGeophysicalResearch(SpacePhysics)129(11), 2024–032925 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JA032925

    doi:10.1029/2024ja032925 2024

  5. [5]

    On- Orbit Measurements and Calibrations

    Machol, J.L., Codrescu, S.M., Peck, C.L., Lucas, E.S., Mothersbaugh, J.F., Woods, T.N., Mahon, A.M., Negus, J., Woodraska, D.L., Eden, T.D., Eparvier, F.G., Jones, A.R., Kotten, B., Rachmeler, L.A., Wilson, A.C., Kress, B.T., Rodriguez, J.V., Viereck, R.A.: GOES-R Series X-Ray Sensor (XRS): 2. On- Orbit Measurements and Calibrations. Journal of Geophysica...

    work page doi:10.1029/2026ja035181 2026

  6. [6]

    Lin, R.P., Dennis, B.R., Hurford, G.J., Smith, D.M., Zehnder, A., Harvey, P.R., Curtis, D.W., Pankow, D., Turin, P., Bester, M., Csillaghy, A., Lewis, M., Mad- den, N., van Beek, H.F., Appleby, M., Raudorf, T., McTiernan, J., Ramaty, R., 17 Schmahl, E., Schwartz, R., Krucker, S., Abiad, R., Quinn, T., Berg, P., Hashii, M., Sterling, R., Jackson, R., Pratt...

    2002

  7. [7]

    Jain, R., Dave, H., Shah, A.B., Vadher, N.M., Shah, V.M., Ubale, G.P., Manian, K.S.B., Solanki, C.M., Shah, K.J., Kumar, S., Kayasth, S.L., Patel, V.D., Trivedi, J.J., Deshpande, M.R.: Solar X-ray Spectrometer (Soxs) Mission on Board GSAT2 Indian Spacecraft: The Low-Energy Payload. Sol. Phys.227(1), 89–122 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11207-005-1712-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-005-1712-3 2005

  8. [8]

    Gburek, S., Sylwester, J., Kowalinski, M., Bakala, J., Kordylewski, Z., Podgorski, P., Plocieniak, S., Siarkowski, M., Sylwester, B., Trzebinski, W., Kuzin, S.V., Pertsov, A.A., Kotov, Y.D., Farnik, F., Reale, F., Phillips, K.J.H.: SphinX: The Solar Photometer in X-Rays. Sol. Phys.283(2), 631–649 (2013) https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11207-012-0201-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-012-0201-8 2013

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Journal of Spacecraft and Rock- ets53(2), 328–339 (2016) https://doi.org/10.2514/1.A33351 arXiv:1508.05354 [astro-ph.IM]

    Mason, J.P., Woods, T.N., Caspi, A., Chamberlin, P.C., Moore, C., Jones, A., Kohnert,R.,Li,X.,Palo,S.,Solomon,S.C.:MiniatureX-RaySolarSpectrometer: A Science-Oriented, University 3U CubeSat. Journal of Spacecraft and Rock- ets53(2), 328–339 (2016) https://doi.org/10.2514/1.A33...

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    ApJ802(1), 2 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/ 802/1/L2 arXiv:1502.01725 [astro-ph.SR]

    Caspi, A., Woods, T.N., Warren, H.P.: New Observations of the Solar 0.5-5 keV Soft X-Ray Spectrum. ApJ802(1), 2 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/ 802/1/L2 arXiv:1502.01725 [astro-ph.SR]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Moore, C.S., Caspi, A., Woods, T.N., Chamberlin, P.C., Dennis, B.R., Jones, A.R., Mason, J.P., Schwartz, R.A., Tolbert, A.K.: The Instruments and Capabil- ities of the Miniature X-Ray Solar Spectrometer (MinXSS) CubeSats. Sol. Phys. 293(2), 21 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1007/s1...

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Current Science118(1), 45–52 (2020) https://doi.org/ 10.18520/cs/v118/i1/45-52 arXiv:1910.09231 [astro-ph.IM] 18

    Shanmugam, M., Vadawale, S.V., Patel, A.R., Adalaja, H.K., Mithun, N.P.S., Ladiya, T., Goyal, S.K., Tiwari, N.K., Singh, N., Kumar, S., Painkra, D.K., Acharya, Y.B., Bhardwaj, A., Hait, A.K., Patinge, A., Kapoor, A.h., Kumar, H.N.S., Satya, N., Saxena, G., Arvind, K.: Solar X-...

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Mithun, N.P.S., Vadawale, S.V., Sarkar, A., Shanmugam, M., Patel, A.R., Mon- dal, B., Joshi, B., Janardhan, P., Adalja, H.L., Goyal, S.K., Ladiya, T., Tiwari, N.K., Singh, N., Kumar, S., Tiwari, M.K., Modi, M.H., Bhardwaj, A.: Solar X-Ray Monitor on Board the Chandrayaan-2 Orb...

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    A&A642, 15 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201937362

    Krucker, S., Hurford, G.J., Grimm, O., Kögl, S., Gröbelbauer, H.-P., Etesi, L., Casadei, D., Csillaghy, A., Benz, A.O., Arnold, N.G., Molendini, F., Orlean- ski, P., Schori, D., Xiao, H., Kuhar, M., Hochmuth, N., Felix, S., Schramka, F., Marcin, S., Kobler, S., Iseli, L., Drei...

    2020

  7. [15]

    ApJ956(2), 94 (2023) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acef13 arXiv:2307.01440 [astro-ph.SR]

    Woods, T.N., Schwab, B., Sewell, R., Telikicherla Kandala, A.K., Mason, J.P., Caspi, A., Eden, T., Chandran, A., Chamberlin, P.C., Jones, A.R., Kohnert, R., Moore, C.S., Solomon, S.C., Warren, H.: First Results for Solar Soft X- Ray Irradiance Measurements from the Third-gener...

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics19(11), 160 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/19/11/160

    Zhang, Z., Chen, D.-Y., Wu, J., Chang, J., Hu, Y.-M., Su, Y., Zhang, Y., Wang, J.-P., Liang, Y.-M., Ma, T., Guo, J.-H., Cai, M.-S., Zhang, Y.-Q., Huang, Y.- Y., Peng, X.-Y., Tang, Z.-B., Zhao, X., Zhou, H.-H., Wang, L.-G., Song, J.-X., Ma, M., Xu, G.-Z., Yang, J.-F., Lu, D., H...

    2019

  9. [17]

    Sankarasubramanian, K., Bug, M., Sarwade, A., Sharan, V., Kumar, Kushwaha, A., Verma, S., Ramadevi, M.C., Lakshmipathaiah, K., Thakur, M.K., Gupta, K., Sharma, N., Justin, E.L., Narendra, S., Adoni, A., Srikanth, M., Subramanian, V., Sahu, S.N., Pai, V.K., Mustafa, S.F., Parat...

    2025

  10. [18]

    T., R.,Joshi,B.,Bug,M.,Tyagi,A.,Kumar,S.,Thakur,M.K.,Baggan,A.,Srikanth, T., Dey, A., D

    Nandi, A., Sudhakar, M., Tadepalli, S.P., Jain, A., Singh, B., Palawat, R., B. T., R.,Joshi,B.,Bug,M.,Tyagi,A.,Kumar,S.,Thakur,M.K.,Baggan,A.,Srikanth, T., Dey, A., D. R., V., Adoni, A.A., Padmanabhan, M. S., V., Leeja Justin, E., M. P., J., Gupta, K., P. R., S.M., Lakshmi, A....

    2025

  11. [19]

    In: Siegmund, O.H.W

    Kirsch, M.G., Briel, U.G., Burrows, D., Campana, S., Cusumano, G., Ebi- sawa, K., Freyberg, M.J., Guainazzi, M., Haberl, F., Jahoda, K., Kaastra, J., Kretschmar, P., Larsson, S., Lubiński, P., Mori, K., Plucinsky, P., Pollock, A.M., Rothschild, R., Sembay, S., Wilms, J., Yamam...

    2005

  12. [20]

    Li, Z., Su, Y., Liu, W., Chen, W., Yu, F., Gan, W.: Spectral Cross-Calibrations of ASO-S/HXI with Other X-ray Missions. Sol. Phys.300(5), 56 (2025) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s11207-025-02465-5

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    Current Science 118(2), 219–225 (2020) https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v118/i2/219-225

    Radhakrishna,V.,Tyagi,A.,Narendranath,S.,Vadodariya,K.,Yadav,R.,Singh, B., Balaji, G., Satya, N., Shetty, A., Suresh Kumar, H.N., Kumar, Vaishali, S., Pillai, N.S., Tadepalli, S., Raghavendra, V., Sreekumar, P., Agarwal, A., Valar- mathi, N.: Chandrayaan-2 Large Area Soft X-ra...

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    Experimen- tal Astronomy51(1), 33–60 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10686-020-09686-5 arXiv:2007.07326 [astro-ph.IM]

    Mithun, N.P.S., Vadawale, S.V., Shanmugam, M., Patel, A.R., Tiwari, N.K., Adalja, H.L., Goyal, S.K., Ladiya, T., Singh, N., Kumar, S., Tiwari, M.K., Modi, M.H.,Mondal,B.,Sarkar,A.,Joshi,B.,Janardhan,P.,Bhardwaj,A.:Groundcal- ibration of Solar X-ray Monitor on board the Chandra...

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    ApJ912(1), 13 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/abf0b0 arXiv:2103.16644 [astro-ph.SR]

    Vadawale, S.V., Mithun, N.P.S., Mondal, B., Sarkar, A., Janardhan, P., Joshi, B., Bhardwaj, A., Shanmugam, M., Patel, A.R., Adalja, H.K.L., Goyal, S.K., Ladiya, T., Tiwari, N.K., Singh, N., Kumar, S.: Observations of the Quiet Sun during the Deepest Solar Minimum of the Past C...

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    ApJ920(1), 4 (2021) https://doi.org/10

    Mondal, B., Sarkar, A., Vadawale, S.V., Mithun, N.P.S., Janardhan, P., Del Zanna, G., Mason, H.E., Mitra-Kraev, U., Narendranath, S.: Evolution of 20 Elemental Abundances during B-Class Solar Flares: Soft X-Ray Spectral Mea- surements with Chandrayaan-2 XSM. ApJ920(1), 4 (2021...

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    ApJ939(2), 112 (2022) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac98b4 arXiv:2210.03364 [astro-ph.SR]

    Mithun, N.P.S., Vadawale, S.V., Zanna, G.D., Rao, Y.K., Joshi, B., Sarkar, A., Mondal, B., Janardhan, P., Bhardwaj, A., Mason, H.E.: Soft X-Ray Spec- tral Diagnostics of Multithermal Plasma in Solar Flares with Chandrayaan- 2 XSM. ApJ939(2), 112 (2022) https://doi.org/10.3847/...

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    ApJ904(1), 20 (2020) https://doi

    Schwab, B.D., Sewell, R.H.A., Woods, T.N., Caspi, A., Mason, J.P., Moore, C.: SoftX-RayObservationsofQuiescentSolarActiveRegionsUsingtheNovelDual- zone Aperture X-Ray Solar Spectrometer. ApJ904(1), 20 (2020) https://doi. org/10.3847/1538-4357/abba2a arXiv:2008.11313 [astro-ph.SR]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Astronomy and Computing34, 100449 (2021) https://doi.org/10

    Mithun, N.P.S., Vadawale, S.V., Patel, A.R., Shanmugam, M., Chakrabarty, D., Konar, P., Sarvaiya, T.N., Padia, G.D., Sarkar, A., Kumar, P., Jangid, P., Sarda, A., Shah, M.S., Bhardwaj, A.: Data processing software for chandrayaan-2 solar x-ray monitor. Astronomy and Computing3...

    2021

  20. [28]

    Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables54(2), 181–342 (1993) https://doi.org/10.1006/ adnd.1993.1013

    Henke, B.L., Gullikson, E.M., Davis, J.C.: X-Ray Interactions: Photoabsorption, Scattering, Transmission, and Reflection at E = 50-30,000 eV, Z = 1-92. Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables54(2), 181–342 (1993) https://doi.org/10.1006/ adnd.1993.1013

    1993

  21. [29]

    Current Science 118(1), 53 (2020) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1910.09232 arXiv:1910.09232 [astro-ph.IM]

    Shanmugam, M., Vadawale, S.V., Patel, A.R., Mithun, N.P.S., Adalaja, H.K., Ladiya, T., Goyal, S.K., Tiwari, N.K., Singh, N., Kumar, S., Painkra, D.K., Hait, A.K., Patinge, A., Kumar, A., Basha, S., Subramanian, V.R., Venkatesh, R.G., Prashant, D.B., Navle, S., Acharya, Y.B., M...

    2020 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    Mithun, N.P.S., Vadawale, S.V., Shanmugam, M., Patel, A.R., Singh, N., Kumar, S., Tiwari, N.K., Goyal, S.K., Sarbadhikari, A.B., Arora, G., Srivastava, Y., Adalja, H.K., Ladiya, T., Painkra, D.K., Banerjee, S.B., Patel, V.R., Bhardwaj, A.: Ground calibration of Alpha Particle ...

    2020

  23. [31]

    Nature633(8029), 327–331 (2024) https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07870-7 22

    Vadawale, S.V., Mithun, N.P.S., Shanmugam, M., Basu Sarbadhikari, A., Sinha, R.K., Bhatt, M., Vijayan, S., Srivastava, N., Shukla, A.D., Murty, S.V.S., Bhard- waj, A., Acharya, Y.B., Patel, A.R., Adalaja, H.L., Vaishnava, C.S., Saiguhan, B.S.B., Singh, N., Kumar, S., Painkra, ...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.